As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The integration of immigrants and forced secularism, how far is too far?

124

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    spool32 wrote: »
    Are you saying that currently, without the cultural protectionism in place, there would be a danger of Quebec breaking away to maintain its cultural identity rather than melting into the broader Canada?

    I'm saying Quebec is large and established enough that it is maintaining it's own distinct cultural identity within Canada. In a way that immigrant groups can't do to various factors. And that it's not at all comparable to anything the US has ever dealt with.


    shryke wrote: »
    Except that doesn't work because, again, Quebec is categorically different from Cajuns and really anything the US as dealt with. It's much more similar to Northern Ireland or Scotland.

    The size difference (if you want to talk 100 years ago, you are up from ~25% to ~36% of Canada), a completely distinct culture from the rest of the country with separate laws and traditions and more importantly the simple fact that Canada did not absorb Quebec, Quebec helped form Canada.

    For another example, imagine like half of the original 13 colonies were french instead of english. The situation just isn't comparable to immigrant minority assimilation or the other examples you've brought up.

    Sure they are. You want them to be different because you feel like immigrants should have to integrate, while québécois shouldn't because they started on equal footing.

    But it's not a moral imperative, it's a human process of cultural blending and integration that, when it's not regulatorally interfered with, creates wonderful results.

    Like Jessica Alba.

    This isn't about what anyone should or shouldn't do. This is about how a large already established cultural region being incorporated into a nation is not the same as immigration. They don't react the same way, nor assimilate in similar fashion.

    Think of ethnic enclaves in places like New York. Say, Chinatown. Now imagine all of California was one of those. It's the same effect that creates those enclaves except on a scale so large the effects are drastically different and assimilation does not work the same way.

    shryke on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Are you saying that currently, without the cultural protectionism in place, there would be a danger of Quebec breaking away to maintain its cultural identity rather than melting into the broader Canada?

    I'm saying Quebec is large and established enough that it is maintaining it's own distinct cultural identity within Canada. In a way that immigrant groups can't do to various factors. And that it's not at all comparable to anything the US has ever dealt with.


    shryke wrote: »
    Except that doesn't work because, again, Quebec is categorically different from Cajuns and really anything the US as dealt with. It's much more similar to Northern Ireland or Scotland.

    The size difference (if you want to talk 100 years ago, you are up from ~25% to ~36% of Canada), a completely distinct culture from the rest of the country with separate laws and traditions and more importantly the simple fact that Canada did not absorb Quebec, Quebec helped form Canada.

    For another example, imagine like half of the original 13 colonies were french instead of english. The situation just isn't comparable to immigrant minority assimilation or the other examples you've brought up.

    Sure they are. You want them to be different because you feel like immigrants should have to integrate, while québécois shouldn't because they started on equal footing.

    But it's not a moral imperative, it's a human process of cultural blending and integration that, when it's not regulatorally interfered with, creates wonderful results.

    Like Jessica Alba.

    This isn't about what anyone should or shouldn't do. This is about how a large already established cultural region being incorporated into a nation is not the same as immigration. They don't react the same way, nor assimilate in similar fashion.

    Think of ethnic enclaves in places like New York. Say, Chinatown. Now imagine all of California was one of those. It's the same effect that creates those enclaves except on a scale so large the effects are drastically different and assimilation does not work the same way.

    No situation is identical.

    But if you like the Irish and Scottish analogies better, notice that they also have spent decades or longer trying to regulate the salvation of various parts of their culture, like language, and it isn't working there either.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    shryke wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Are you saying that currently, without the cultural protectionism in place, there would be a danger of Quebec breaking away to maintain its cultural identity rather than melting into the broader Canada?

    I'm saying Quebec is large and established enough that it is maintaining it's own distinct cultural identity within Canada. In a way that immigrant groups can't do to various factors. And that it's not at all comparable to anything the US has ever dealt with.


    shryke wrote: »
    Except that doesn't work because, again, Quebec is categorically different from Cajuns and really anything the US as dealt with. It's much more similar to Northern Ireland or Scotland.

    The size difference (if you want to talk 100 years ago, you are up from ~25% to ~36% of Canada), a completely distinct culture from the rest of the country with separate laws and traditions and more importantly the simple fact that Canada did not absorb Quebec, Quebec helped form Canada.

    For another example, imagine like half of the original 13 colonies were french instead of english. The situation just isn't comparable to immigrant minority assimilation or the other examples you've brought up.

    Sure they are. You want them to be different because you feel like immigrants should have to integrate, while québécois shouldn't because they started on equal footing.

    But it's not a moral imperative, it's a human process of cultural blending and integration that, when it's not regulatorally interfered with, creates wonderful results.

    Like Jessica Alba.

    This isn't about what anyone should or shouldn't do. This is about how a large already established cultural region being incorporated into a nation is not the same as immigration. They don't react the same way, nor assimilate in similar fashion.

    Think of ethnic enclaves in places like New York. Say, Chinatown. Now imagine all of California was one of those. It's the same effect that creates those enclaves except on a scale so large the effects are drastically different and assimilation does not work the same way.

    No situation is identical.

    But if you like the Irish and Scottish analogies better, notice that they also have spent decades or longer trying to regulate the salvation of various parts of their culture, like language, and it isn't working there either.


    Sure it is. Welsh is still going strong and recent educational initiatives have helped it alot it seems.

    More then that, beyond just the language issue, these regions have avoided assimilation, which is the larger point.

    Comparisons to immigration simply aren't reasonable for cases like this.

    shryke on
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    The percentage of Welsh speakers has more or less remained low, but somewhat stable. The vast majority of people in Wales cannot speak Welsh. That isn't really what I would consider 'going strong'. I don't see how you can claim Wales hasn't assimilated either. It doesn't even have the largely ineffectual secessionist movement that Quebec and Scotland have.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    Saammiel wrote: »
    The percentage of Welsh speakers has more or less remained low, but somewhat stable. The vast majority of people in Wales cannot speak Welsh. That isn't really what I would consider 'going strong'. I don't see how you can claim Wales hasn't assimilated either. It doesn't even have the largely ineffectual secessionist movement that Quebec and Scotland have.

    ?

    Plaid Cymru are the third largest party in the Welsh Assembly, with 11 of 60 seats. An independent Wales is one of their main policy platforms.

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    I stand corrected on that then, though it looks like even then support for an independant Wales only runs about 10% (compared to 62% supporting the status quo and 28% undecided).

    Saammiel on
  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    As far as I'm concerned, Quebec can pass whatever aggressively terrible secularist laws they want. If I think they are unreasonable, I won't move there. If Quebec wants wants potential immigrants to share a certain set of values with the existing citizens of Quebec, welp, that's their prerogative, even if I think they are silly values. If a state wants to go a step farther and say "Hey, we're all Muslims. The official state religion will be Islam" that is fine with me as well.

    We have to remember that US norms of religious freedoms are rather unique in the world. France specifically has always been very aggressive in imposing values in the name of creating a unified 'French' populace. There are some benefits to this approach, in that anyone, no matter what race they are or where they are from, can move to France, adopt the French beliefs, and be 'truly French'. Many of the European countries are defined more closely along ethnic/religious lines.

    I don't think Quebec's new law is going to work out well, but then multiculturalism doesn't seem to be working out as well as it used to either. Nowadays, it's quite easy for immigrants to not really assimilate into their new culture. American ex-pats in particular are famous for this, often not even learning how to speak the language of the country to which they have moved. With the internet and (relatively) cheap air travel, it's quite easy to just stay fully connected to your old culture and not adopt the new one. Some people view this as problematic. I'm not sure what the best way to handle immigration is or the best way to organize society in a way so that the interests of immigrants and existing citizens are best furthered. I think globalization and free trade/unrestrained labor market/outsourcing have wrought innumerable harms on our society. It may follow from that that very limited immigration, tight labor market, and protective tariffs are needed. I realize all three of these conclusions run directly contrary to our corporation-centric glorification of the free market and profits above all else, however.
    spool32 wrote: »
    It might have taken a century, but both Louisiana and the rest of the nation benefit from absorbing cultural traditions into the larger American identity, dissolving the barriers that separate ethnic populations, and rejecting cultural Balkanization, particularly artificial style mandatory language requirements and similar efforts.

    If this had been allowed to happen naturally with Quebec a century or two ago, the problems in this thread would no longer exist! I don't think it's ever good for a country to be in the position of enforcing regulations that provide cultural life support to a minority enclave.

    Don't actively suppress them, of course... Just... No special treatment, no carve-outs, no regulation. Eventually they'll blend into Canada and some traditions will remain and some unique flavor will stick around and some will be gone and by 2100 no one will say they're Québécois because they'll mostly all think of themselves as Canadian.

    They aren't going to blend into Canada if they don't want to blend into Canada. All evidence points to them not wanting to blend into Canada. Also the Quebecois in Quebec are not a minority enclave in Quebec, but the majority. Therefore a law passed that applies only to Quebec is not really benefiting only a tiny minority, but the majority of the population.

    I don't find your Louisiana example persuasive.

    A more similar example is say, the Walloons and Flemish in Belgium. There are no Belgians. There is no Belgian language. There is the French Walloon part of Belgium and the Dutch Flemish part of Belgium, and there has been for as long as Belgium has been a country. These areas are distinct and not terribly friendly, and there is absolutely no sign of them blending together.

    Or look at Switzerland. There is no swiss language. There is a german part of switzerland and a french part of switzerland, with distinct cultures, languages, and political boundaries. Always has been. Always will be. There is no evidence they are going to blend together. It's been hundreds of years.

    Or look at Great Britain. You have England, Scotland, and Wales. Distinct cultures and languages and political entities. Still. Hundreds of years later.

    If people are interested in maintaining a distinct culture from their neighbors, they can and will do so successfully, even with the passage of hundreds of years and otherwise completely peaceful and amicable relations with their neighbors. They will do this even if they have no desire to separate from their culturally different neighbors who share the same larger political entity.

    What happened in Louisiana is that Louisiana used to be French, was overrun by non french immigrants/invaders who absorbed and replaced the french culture, and is now no longer french.

    Quebec probably looks at Louisiana and shudders in terror that it should face a similar fate. They probably look upon it as an warning signal of what to avoid, not an example to emulate.

    I'm having a hard time finding precise figures on wikipedia, but apparently the Louisiana Territory (830,000 square miles) had about 100,000 people living in when purchased by the US in the early 19th century. New Orleans seems to have had less than 8,000 inhabitants total, about half of which were slaves. By contrast Quebec province seems to have had about 400,000 French speakers in the early 19th century, in a vastly smaller area. The 'density' if you will of french culture in Louisiana was never as dense as it was in quebec.

    Vorpal on
    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    I think a lot of the Quebec nationalism boils down to just being big fucking racists.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    I think a lot of the Quebec nationalism boils down to just being big fucking racists.

    Well, to be fair, that's how nationalism is pretty much everywhere, no?

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    I think a lot of the Quebec nationalism boils down to just being big fucking racists.

    Well, to be fair, that's how nationalism is pretty much everywhere, no?

    ethnic nationalism, by definition, yes. In theory you can have a civic nationalism whereby blood relation grants no privileges.

    But this whole thread has been inspired by a suspicion that someone's proclaimed dedication to civic nationhood is just a thin excuse for maintaining ethnic purity. Reflect upon this statement:
    Vorpal wrote: »
    They aren't going to blend into Canada if they don't want to blend into Canada.

    and what that implies about people who might not want to blend into Quebec. But I do not think PQ will openly denounce diversity, not until they have no more excuses.

    aRkpc.gif
  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    ronya wrote: »
    I think a lot of the Quebec nationalism boils down to just being big fucking racists.

    Well, to be fair, that's how nationalism is pretty much everywhere, no?

    ethnic nationalism, by definition, yes. In theory you can have a civic nationalism whereby blood relation grants no privileges.

    But this whole thread has been inspired by a suspicion that someone's proclaimed dedication to civic nationhood is just a thin excuse for maintaining ethnic purity. Reflect upon this statement:
    Vorpal wrote: »
    They aren't going to blend into Canada if they don't want to blend into Canada.

    and what that implies about people who might not want to blend into Quebec. But I do not think PQ will openly denounce diversity, not until they have no more excuses.

    Many Quebec politicians (mainly from the PQ and the BQ, including Gilles Duceppes), have been open and verbal critics of "Canadian-style multiculturalism".

    For a very long time following it's conquest by the British (Upper/Lower Canada period), Quebec has faced assimilation attempts by the English portion of Canada. These assimilation attempts were done by imposed policies suppressing the use of the french language and the practice of Catholicism in Quebec. For that reason, most Quebecois view the french language as being intricately linked to their culture. Catholicism (and religion as a whole really) was largely tossed aside during the Quiet Revolution but some of its symbolism remains, although Catholic symbols are mainly seen as cultural symbols rather than religious ones (yes, many of us are aware of this contradiction).

    As a result, language and culture in Quebec are not considered separate things but rather as belonging to one another. I would even go forward and say that to Quebecers, language is considered the main element of their culture as it encompasses songs, writings, movies, etc.

    Due to English being the international language, any American/Canadian multiculturalism style policies tends to lead to cultural minorities being absorbed (integrated) into the English language sphere.

    To many Quebecers (mainly belonging but not limited to nationalist/separatist movements), these types of "laissez-faire" policies do not lead to the integration of minorities into Quebec's culture, but rather to the assimilation of Quebec as a whole into the Canadian anglophone culture. This assimilation is what Quebec defines as "losing their culture".

    To come back to spool's comments about the Cajun community, what you are bringing forward is rather seen as a successful and still ongoing assimilation of the Acadian people in Louisiana, not as successful preservation of their culture, mainly due to the loss of language. Even until the mid 20th century, the US government had policies in place to try and suppress French in Louisiana. Of course, what one person sees as a loss of culture, another can see as an evolution. But due language being seen as synonymous to culture in Quebec, the fate of the Acadians in Louisiana is definitely seen as a loss through our lens. Cajun French is still in decline in Louisiana and many fear it becoming extinct within a few generations.

    From Quebec's point of view, the only reason they were able to avoid such a fate was that the demographic weight of Quebec prevented the British from deporting them like they did to the Acadians. Quebec sees the large size of its francophone demographics as its only protection against assimilation into the anglophone sphere. Due to this, Quebec policies tend to be aimed at assimilating immigrants into this francophone demographic.

    The best way to preserve their culture (read: french language), is a commonly debated topic in the province. Some advocate language laws (like Bill 101). Others ask lower immigration caps/budget increase in order to allocate more resources and money per person in the teaching of the french language for newcomers. Some will advocate more immigration, but focused on french-speaking immigrants (normally from the old french colonies). Some want to stop immigration, and as in any country, bigots tend to jump on that bandwagon.

    Language laws in Quebec, for all the criticism they receive (some if definitely justified, some is definitely overblown), have been pretty effective. The french language is more present in Montreal than it used to be 60 years ago, despite Montreal being much, much more ethnically diverse than it was back then and less people speaking french at home.

    Before the Quiet Revolution, the rise of Quebec nationalism and language laws, you could be kicked out of a store for not "speaking white" (speaking English). Pretty much all upper management positions were occupied by anglophones. Cases of francophone employees being barred from speaking french to each other in the presence of an anglophone supervisor were commonplace. Unilingual anglophones applicants would have priority over bilingual francophone applicants.

    The original purpose of Quebec's language laws were to overturn that trend, or as the Quebec saying went, to become "Maître chez nous" (masters in our own home).

    Of course, today's cultural landscape has changed in Quebec, but language laws have not evolved at the same speed, which is why they're still being debated today, and why some specific laws have become downright bigoted due to a change in context. The main purpose of language laws in Quebec is (or rather should be) to make its immigrants francophone. This is also why millions of taxpayer dollars are invested in french teaching programs for newcomers.

    Many language laws involve the workplace as it is seen as one of the best ways to integrate immigrants. They do not bar the use of other languages at the workplace, but rather stipulate that all communications must have a french version. A practical example of this would be that any e-mail or papers HR sends you must be in french, but they can still have any translated version they wish. Keep in mind that the public sector is huge in Quebec. Approximately 22.5% of Quebec employees are in public sector jobs. IIRC, in the US this number is in the single digits. Most of the Education sector is public. Healthcare is public. Energy (Hydro-Quebec) is public. Because french is the main language of Quebec, public services must be offered in french (this does not exclude them being available in English as well, hence why being French/English bilingual is a huge advantage work-wise).

    As such, I do not view the idea of having language laws as being a bad thing. You're essentially using public funds to teach people a language, which will then help them integrate in the society and find jobs. While the practical application of those laws can and should certainly be debated, saying it is based in xenophobia and racism is misguided.

    Coming back to the topic at hand however, I am certainly against the proposed anti-religion laws, for the same reason I do not oppose the idea of language laws.

    As I said above, language laws can be used to promote teach french to newcomers, which in turns helps to include them into society.

    The current anti-religion laws would ban public employees (reminder: 22.5%) from wearing religious attire in public. People who wear religious symbols won't stop being religious because of this, they'll just stop working at those jobs. This is effectively secluding people instead of integrating them.




    notdroid on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Yes, but I do hope you realize the contradiction between declaring that no possible law could let the Anglophone government successfully anglicize Quebec, and declaring the triumphant success of Quebecois laws in francizing a minority in your own society.

    Language assimilation always involves oppression of those who cannot speak the right languages - to condition access to the good material life on altering what one speaks. All that has been done is to shuffle around who oppresses who. Insofar as we live in a world without babelfish, some assimilation is necessary - but you get to choose whether you stare daggers at each other for two generations, or for twenty. That was @spool32's point.

    I mean, take a look at this:
    notdroid wrote: »
    As such, I do not view the idea of having language laws as being a bad thing. You're essentially using public funds to teach people a language, which will then help them integrate in the society and find jobs. While the practical application of those laws can and should certainly be debated, saying it is based in xenophobia and racism is misguided.

    Such a sudden devotion to integration! What would your objections be to an anglophone federal government "essentially using public funds to teach Quebecois people English, which will then help them integrate in our society and find jobs"? Certainly in our enlightened era we could craft civil-rights legislation ensuring that there is no objection to additionally speaking Quebecois French, of course.

    I have absolutely no doubt as to the effectiveness of language laws. The question is what kind of society you envision engineering as a result of those laws. The reason for the loud commitment to 'diversity' (even if they reject 'multiculturalism') is, of course, the substantial Anglophone minority in Quebec. Consider how Quebec would respond to a proposal to partition Quebec within the federation, so that anglophone and francophone Quebec could part ways. 'Masters in our own home' - whose home?

    aRkpc.gif
  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, but I do hope you realize the contradiction between declaring that no possible law could let the Anglophone government successfully anglicize Quebec, and declaring the triumphant success of Quebecois laws in francizing a minority in your own society.

    I did not declare that no possible laws could not successfully anglicize Quebec. Just like language laws could be used by the British to try and assimilate francophones into becoming anglophones, they can be used by francophones to try and assimilate newcomers into becoming francophones instead of anglophones. I mentioned that the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec helped them avoid the same fate as the Acadians (deportation). On the contrary, assimilation of francophones in Quebec used to be a very real threat. Some nationalists will argue that this threat is still present. As Canada evolved as a federation, Quebec was given enough powers for this large francophone demographics to pass its own laws to counteract this assimilation.
    ronya wrote: »
    Language assimilation always involves oppression of those who cannot speak the right languages - to condition access to the good material life on altering what one speaks. All that has been done is to shuffle around who oppresses who. Insofar as we live in a world without babelfish, some assimilation is necessary - but you get to choose whether you stare daggers at each other for two generations, or for twenty. That was @spool32's point.

    Language assimilation is done through language laws, which can easily involve oppression, but it does not inherently does so.

    To give you an example, public services in Quebec must be offered in french. This does not exclude them being offered in any other language, as long as being served in french remains an option. A few years ago my mom had an injury and had to go to the emergency room, so I accompanied her. My mom, a first generation immigrant, is pretty fluent in french, but she does not speak english. I accompanied her, and the doctor we met with did not speak french, so my mom couldn't communicate with him. I asked if we could meet with a doctor who speaks french instead, so we waited a bit longer and he went and got his colleague instead. The clinic is therefore compliant with language laws, as the law does not say that people who work in the public sector should absolutely be francophones, but that services should be available in french. A breach of this law would have been to refuse us service in french. Saying that the requirement for public services to be offered in french is oppression or xenophobic is downright absurd.
    ronya wrote: »
    I mean, take a look at this:
    notdroid wrote: »
    As such, I do not view the idea of having language laws as being a bad thing. You're essentially using public funds to teach people a language, which will then help them integrate in the society and find jobs. While the practical application of those laws can and should certainly be debated, saying it is based in xenophobia and racism is misguided.

    Such a sudden devotion to integration! What would your objections be to an anglophone federal government "essentially using public funds to teach Quebecois people English, which will then help them integrate in our society and find jobs"? Certainly in our enlightened era we could craft civil-rights legislation ensuring that there is no objection to additionally speaking Quebecois French, of course.

    I have absolutely no doubt as to the effectiveness of language laws. The question is what kind of society you envision engineering as a result of those laws. The reason for the loud commitment to 'diversity' (even if they reject 'multiculturalism') is, of course, the substantial Anglophone minority in Quebec. Consider how Quebec would respond to a proposal to partition Quebec within the federation, so that anglophone and francophone Quebec could part ways. 'Masters in our own home' - whose home?

    What you are describing in your first paragraph would be colonialism. A correct parallel would be "What would your objections be to an anglophone provincial government "essentially using public funds to teach people English within their provinces, which will then help them integrate in our society and find jobs". My answer to that would be: That would be a good thing. How do you consider this being a bad thing? Also note that Quebec policies are not aimed at its pre-existing Anglophone community, regardless of their origin. The Anglophone community in Quebec is actually exempted from many language laws, those about schooling for example.

    To answer your last point, we're not in the 1700s anymore. From a practical point of view, the federal government doesn't get to decide how to break apart and make up provinces at will. I view provinces are their own separate entities, each given a very large degree of self determination. I'm against Quebec separation, but if there was another referendum and the majority of the province wished to secede, I would accept the result. Likewise, if for example Montreal's West Island wanted to break apart from Quebec and create their own Anglophone country, I would not oppose it either (although I would consider it much more absurd than I already consider Quebec independance to be), but I'm sure a lot of Quebec would bitch about it, just like a lot of people in Canada, including in Quebec, bitch about Quebec's separation attempts. That's a universal reaction, not a reaction proper to Quebec or Canada.

    Some people in Quebec object any kind of language laws.
    Some language laws can be sensitive and help integrate newcomers into society. Some people in Quebec support that.
    Some language laws can be oppressive, bigoted and xenophobic. And sadly, some people in Quebec would support that.

    But in any discussion about Quebec's language laws (or Quebec nationalism for that matter), there's always people who paint the whole discourse with a broad brush of that third category, and this shows a gross misunderstanding of the issues at hand.



    notdroid on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    notdroid wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I think a lot of the Quebec nationalism boils down to just being big fucking racists.

    Well, to be fair, that's how nationalism is pretty much everywhere, no?

    ethnic nationalism, by definition, yes. In theory you can have a civic nationalism whereby blood relation grants no privileges.

    But this whole thread has been inspired by a suspicion that someone's proclaimed dedication to civic nationhood is just a thin excuse for maintaining ethnic purity. Reflect upon this statement:
    Vorpal wrote: »
    They aren't going to blend into Canada if they don't want to blend into Canada.

    and what that implies about people who might not want to blend into Quebec. But I do not think PQ will openly denounce diversity, not until they have no more excuses.

    Many Quebec politicians (mainly from the PQ and the BQ, including Gilles Duceppes), have been open and verbal critics of "Canadian-style multiculturalism".

    For a very long time following it's conquest by the British (Upper/Lower Canada period), Quebec has faced assimilation attempts by the English portion of Canada. These assimilation attempts were done by imposed policies suppressing the use of the french language and the practice of Catholicism in Quebec. For that reason, most Quebecois view the french language as being intricately linked to their culture. Catholicism (and religion as a whole really) was largely tossed aside during the Quiet Revolution but some of its symbolism remains, although Catholic symbols are mainly seen as cultural symbols rather than religious ones (yes, many of us are aware of this contradiction).

    As a result, language and culture in Quebec are not considered separate things but rather as belonging to one another. I would even go forward and say that to Quebecers, language is considered the main element of their culture as it encompasses songs, writings, movies, etc.

    Due to English being the international language, any American/Canadian multiculturalism style policies tends to lead to cultural minorities being absorbed (integrated) into the English language sphere.

    To many Quebecers (mainly belonging but not limited to nationalist/separatist movements), these types of "laissez-faire" policies do not lead to the integration of minorities into Quebec's culture, but rather to the assimilation of Quebec as a whole into the Canadian anglophone culture. This assimilation is what Quebec defines as "losing their culture".

    To come back to spool's comments about the Cajun community, what you are bringing forward is rather seen as a successful and still ongoing assimilation of the Acadian people in Louisiana, not as successful preservation of their culture, mainly due to the loss of language. Even until the mid 20th century, the US government had policies in place to try and suppress French in Louisiana. Of course, what one person sees as a loss of culture, another can see as an evolution. But due language being seen as synonymous to culture in Quebec, the fate of the Acadians in Louisiana is definitely seen as a loss through our lens. Cajun French is still in decline in Louisiana and many fear it becoming extinct within a few generations.

    From Quebec's point of view, the only reason they were able to avoid such a fate was that the demographic weight of Quebec prevented the British from deporting them like they did to the Acadians. Quebec sees the large size of its francophone demographics as its only protection against assimilation into the anglophone sphere. Due to this, Quebec policies tend to be aimed at assimilating immigrants into this francophone demographic.

    The best way to preserve their culture (read: french language), is a commonly debated topic in the province. Some advocate language laws (like Bill 101). Others ask lower immigration caps/budget increase in order to allocate more resources and money per person in the teaching of the french language for newcomers. Some will advocate more immigration, but focused on french-speaking immigrants (normally from the old french colonies). Some want to stop immigration, and as in any country, bigots tend to jump on that bandwagon.

    Language laws in Quebec, for all the criticism they receive (some if definitely justified, some is definitely overblown), have been pretty effective. The french language is more present in Montreal than it used to be 60 years ago, despite Montreal being much, much more ethnically diverse than it was back then and less people speaking french at home.

    Before the Quiet Revolution, the rise of Quebec nationalism and language laws, you could be kicked out of a store for not "speaking white" (speaking English). Pretty much all upper management positions were occupied by anglophones. Cases of francophone employees being barred from speaking french to each other in the presence of an anglophone supervisor were commonplace. Unilingual anglophones applicants would have priority over bilingual francophone applicants.

    The original purpose of Quebec's language laws were to overturn that trend, or as the Quebec saying went, to become "Maître chez nous" (masters in our own home).

    Of course, today's cultural landscape has changed in Quebec, but language laws have not evolved at the same speed, which is why they're still being debated today, and why some specific laws have become downright bigoted due to a change in context. The main purpose of language laws in Quebec is (or rather should be) to make its immigrants francophone. This is also why millions of taxpayer dollars are invested in french teaching programs for newcomers.

    Many language laws involve the workplace as it is seen as one of the best ways to integrate immigrants. They do not bar the use of other languages at the workplace, but rather stipulate that all communications must have a french version. A practical example of this would be that any e-mail or papers HR sends you must be in french, but they can still have any translated version they wish. Keep in mind that the public sector is huge in Quebec. Approximately 22.5% of Quebec employees are in public sector jobs. IIRC, in the US this number is in the single digits. Most of the Education sector is public. Healthcare is public. Energy (Hydro-Quebec) is public. Because french is the main language of Quebec, public services must be offered in french (this does not exclude them being available in English as well, hence why being French/English bilingual is a huge advantage work-wise).

    As such, I do not view the idea of having language laws as being a bad thing. You're essentially using public funds to teach people a language, which will then help them integrate in the society and find jobs. While the practical application of those laws can and should certainly be debated, saying it is based in xenophobia and racism is misguided.

    Coming back to the topic at hand however, I am certainly against the proposed anti-religion laws, for the same reason I do not oppose the idea of language laws.

    As I said above, language laws can be used to promote teach french to newcomers, which in turns helps to include them into society.

    The current anti-religion laws would ban public employees (reminder: 22.5%) from wearing religious attire in public. People who wear religious symbols won't stop being religious because of this, they'll just stop working at those jobs. This is effectively secluding people instead of integrating them.




    This was all really informative but it leaves me wondering how, when Quebec itself is engaged in a relatively vigorous effort to reject assimilation and fight it off at every turn, they can expect foreign immigrants to do any different...?

    spool32 on
  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    @notdroid thanks for the informative and detailed post(s)

    The basic version is that we can say in a horrified manner "How can Queubec oppress these minorities?" but you have to realize they view themselves as endangered minorities under constant threat.

    I also don't think the English trying to forcibly change the culture and language of the already established province of Quebec against their will is quite the same thing as Quebec saying "Anyone who wants to move here from elsewhere must be willing to learn French"

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I think a lot of the Quebec nationalism boils down to just being big fucking racists.

    Well, to be fair, that's how nationalism is pretty much everywhere, no?

    ethnic nationalism, by definition, yes. In theory you can have a civic nationalism whereby blood relation grants no privileges.

    But this whole thread has been inspired by a suspicion that someone's proclaimed dedication to civic nationhood is just a thin excuse for maintaining ethnic purity. Reflect upon this statement:
    Vorpal wrote: »
    They aren't going to blend into Canada if they don't want to blend into Canada.

    and what that implies about people who might not want to blend into Quebec. But I do not think PQ will openly denounce diversity, not until they have no more excuses.

    Many Quebec politicians (mainly from the PQ and the BQ, including Gilles Duceppes), have been open and verbal critics of "Canadian-style multiculturalism".

    For a very long time following it's conquest by the British (Upper/Lower Canada period), Quebec has faced assimilation attempts by the English portion of Canada. These assimilation attempts were done by imposed policies suppressing the use of the french language and the practice of Catholicism in Quebec. For that reason, most Quebecois view the french language as being intricately linked to their culture. Catholicism (and religion as a whole really) was largely tossed aside during the Quiet Revolution but some of its symbolism remains, although Catholic symbols are mainly seen as cultural symbols rather than religious ones (yes, many of us are aware of this contradiction).

    As a result, language and culture in Quebec are not considered separate things but rather as belonging to one another. I would even go forward and say that to Quebecers, language is considered the main element of their culture as it encompasses songs, writings, movies, etc.

    Due to English being the international language, any American/Canadian multiculturalism style policies tends to lead to cultural minorities being absorbed (integrated) into the English language sphere.

    To many Quebecers (mainly belonging but not limited to nationalist/separatist movements), these types of "laissez-faire" policies do not lead to the integration of minorities into Quebec's culture, but rather to the assimilation of Quebec as a whole into the Canadian anglophone culture. This assimilation is what Quebec defines as "losing their culture".

    To come back to spool's comments about the Cajun community, what you are bringing forward is rather seen as a successful and still ongoing assimilation of the Acadian people in Louisiana, not as successful preservation of their culture, mainly due to the loss of language. Even until the mid 20th century, the US government had policies in place to try and suppress French in Louisiana. Of course, what one person sees as a loss of culture, another can see as an evolution. But due language being seen as synonymous to culture in Quebec, the fate of the Acadians in Louisiana is definitely seen as a loss through our lens. Cajun French is still in decline in Louisiana and many fear it becoming extinct within a few generations.

    From Quebec's point of view, the only reason they were able to avoid such a fate was that the demographic weight of Quebec prevented the British from deporting them like they did to the Acadians. Quebec sees the large size of its francophone demographics as its only protection against assimilation into the anglophone sphere. Due to this, Quebec policies tend to be aimed at assimilating immigrants into this francophone demographic.

    The best way to preserve their culture (read: french language), is a commonly debated topic in the province. Some advocate language laws (like Bill 101). Others ask lower immigration caps/budget increase in order to allocate more resources and money per person in the teaching of the french language for newcomers. Some will advocate more immigration, but focused on french-speaking immigrants (normally from the old french colonies). Some want to stop immigration, and as in any country, bigots tend to jump on that bandwagon.

    Language laws in Quebec, for all the criticism they receive (some if definitely justified, some is definitely overblown), have been pretty effective. The french language is more present in Montreal than it used to be 60 years ago, despite Montreal being much, much more ethnically diverse than it was back then and less people speaking french at home.

    Before the Quiet Revolution, the rise of Quebec nationalism and language laws, you could be kicked out of a store for not "speaking white" (speaking English). Pretty much all upper management positions were occupied by anglophones. Cases of francophone employees being barred from speaking french to each other in the presence of an anglophone supervisor were commonplace. Unilingual anglophones applicants would have priority over bilingual francophone applicants.

    The original purpose of Quebec's language laws were to overturn that trend, or as the Quebec saying went, to become "Maître chez nous" (masters in our own home).

    Of course, today's cultural landscape has changed in Quebec, but language laws have not evolved at the same speed, which is why they're still being debated today, and why some specific laws have become downright bigoted due to a change in context. The main purpose of language laws in Quebec is (or rather should be) to make its immigrants francophone. This is also why millions of taxpayer dollars are invested in french teaching programs for newcomers.

    Many language laws involve the workplace as it is seen as one of the best ways to integrate immigrants. They do not bar the use of other languages at the workplace, but rather stipulate that all communications must have a french version. A practical example of this would be that any e-mail or papers HR sends you must be in french, but they can still have any translated version they wish. Keep in mind that the public sector is huge in Quebec. Approximately 22.5% of Quebec employees are in public sector jobs. IIRC, in the US this number is in the single digits. Most of the Education sector is public. Healthcare is public. Energy (Hydro-Quebec) is public. Because french is the main language of Quebec, public services must be offered in french (this does not exclude them being available in English as well, hence why being French/English bilingual is a huge advantage work-wise).

    As such, I do not view the idea of having language laws as being a bad thing. You're essentially using public funds to teach people a language, which will then help them integrate in the society and find jobs. While the practical application of those laws can and should certainly be debated, saying it is based in xenophobia and racism is misguided.

    Coming back to the topic at hand however, I am certainly against the proposed anti-religion laws, for the same reason I do not oppose the idea of language laws.

    As I said above, language laws can be used to promote teach french to newcomers, which in turns helps to include them into society.

    The current anti-religion laws would ban public employees (reminder: 22.5%) from wearing religious attire in public. People who wear religious symbols won't stop being religious because of this, they'll just stop working at those jobs. This is effectively secluding people instead of integrating them.

    This was all really informative but it leaves me wondering how, when Quebec itself is engaged in a relatively vigorous effort to reject assimilation and fight it off at every turn, they can expect foreign immigrants to do any different...?

    I would guess to most people it comes down to Quebec being an already established culture and one the founder people of Canada.

    Trying to assimilate an already established culture would be considered colonialism, whereas people immigrating somewhere are seen as having to be willing to integrate in their new society to some extent. Due to language being the primary characteristic of Quebec culture and society as I explained above, this translates into immigrants learning french.

    I wouldn't deny that there is a certain degree mental gymnastics going on in many people's head.

    I also wouldn't deny there are people who think immigrants should assimilate because they simply are bigots and xenophobes, although I see these people as a fringe group.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited September 2013
    notdroid wrote: »
    To give you an example, public services in Quebec must be offered in french. This does not exclude them being offered in any other language, as long as being served in french remains an option. A few years ago my mom had an injury and had to go to the emergency room, so I accompanied her. My mom, a first generation immigrant, is pretty fluent in french, but she does not speak english. I accompanied her, and the doctor we met with did not speak french, so my mom couldn't communicate with him. I asked if we could meet with a doctor who speaks french instead, so we waited a bit longer and he went and got his colleague instead. The clinic is therefore compliant with language laws, as the law does not say that people who work in the public sector should absolutely be francophones, but that services should be available in french. A breach of this law would have been to refuse us service in french. Saying that the requirement for public services to be offered in french is oppression or xenophobic is downright absurd.

    I did not realize that providing services in French is costless to non-Francophone service providers! Do you also think that providing services in English would be costless to non-Anglophone service providers?

    What do you think would happen to the dominance of French in Quebec if everyone in Quebec were bilingual?

    You merrily hop between Quebec's sovereignty as a geographical province - where Anglophone Quebecers have an undeniable right to live and work - and Quebec's sovereignty as a self-determining Francophone nation. When it comes to the rights of minorities within Quebec, you cry that any intrusion by perfidious outsiders must be "colonialism" - that these people are "invaders". But when it comes to legislation enforcing the supremacy of French, suddenly minority cultures of the Canadian federation have an inviolable right to self-determination. Make up your mind.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    ronya wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    To give you an example, public services in Quebec must be offered in french. This does not exclude them being offered in any other language, as long as being served in french remains an option. A few years ago my mom had an injury and had to go to the emergency room, so I accompanied her. My mom, a first generation immigrant, is pretty fluent in french, but she does not speak english. I accompanied her, and the doctor we met with did not speak french, so my mom couldn't communicate with him. I asked if we could meet with a doctor who speaks french instead, so we waited a bit longer and he went and got his colleague instead. The clinic is therefore compliant with language laws, as the law does not say that people who work in the public sector should absolutely be francophones, but that services should be available in french. A breach of this law would have been to refuse us service in french. Saying that the requirement for public services to be offered in french is oppression or xenophobic is downright absurd.

    I did not realize that providing services in French is costless to non-Francophone service providers! Do you also think that providing services in English would be costless to non-Anglophone service providers?

    What do you think would happen to the dominance of French in Quebec if everyone in Quebec were bilingual?

    You merrily hop between Quebec's sovereignty as a geographical province - where Anglophone Quebecers have an undeniable right to live and work - and Quebec's sovereignty as a self-determining Francophone nation. When it comes to the rights of minorities within Quebec, you cry that any intrusion by perfidious outsiders must be "colonialism" - that these people are "invaders". But when it comes to legislation enforcing the supremacy of French, suddenly minority cultures of the Canadian federation have an inviolable right to self-determination. Make up your mind.

    Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. The colonialism comment was in response to your theoretical scenario of federal involvement in provincial affairs. Education falls into the provincial sphere of power, not the federal one. The same goes for healthcare. I did not feel the need to start another tangent about the Canadian federal/provincial separation of powers subject, but understanding those is essential to the topics I've touched above. I do not know if you are Canadian or not, or if you are familiar with this topic or not, but if you'd like me to, I can clarify some of it through PM, or redirect you to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism#Powers_exclusive_to_the_provincial_legislatures)

    The experience I described above does not exclude services being given in other languages. It simply means that services must be available in french, + X other languages.

    You seem to be objecting the view that public services should be offered but not restricted to the primary language of the public, which leads me to ask, what is your position exactly? That services should not be offered in french? That services should be offered in every language? In an ideal world, public services should be provided in every language. This is nonetheless an unrealistic and utopian view.

    I am of Iranian origin. There is a significant Iranian community in Montreal, whose taxes pay for public services, just like any other person's taxes. Do you think the province of Quebec should put funds in the system to offer healthcare services in Farsi? To offer entire elementary and secondary education in Farsi? How about Italian? Spanish? Arabic? Do you believe it is realistically feasible? Do you believe it is xenophobic or oppressive for them not to do so?

    If the provincial government goes to a public clinic and and says to the management: "The services you render should be available to the public in French. Here are subsidized courses/money/financial incentives for some of your employees to learn french. You can still give your services in any other language you want." do you consider this to be bigotry and oppression? Because everything you've put forward so far seems like that is your position.

    On one hand, language laws regarding public service make sure that these services can be offered in french, which once again, a majority of Quebecers (regardless of their origin) speak. Services can still be offered in any other languages, but it is not guaranteed.

    On the other hand, no laws mean that services can be offered in any language (same above), but it is not guaranteed. How is this a better/more desirable alternative?


    notdroid on
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    To give you an example, public services in Quebec must be offered in french. This does not exclude them being offered in any other language, as long as being served in french remains an option. A few years ago my mom had an injury and had to go to the emergency room, so I accompanied her. My mom, a first generation immigrant, is pretty fluent in french, but she does not speak english. I accompanied her, and the doctor we met with did not speak french, so my mom couldn't communicate with him. I asked if we could meet with a doctor who speaks french instead, so we waited a bit longer and he went and got his colleague instead. The clinic is therefore compliant with language laws, as the law does not say that people who work in the public sector should absolutely be francophones, but that services should be available in french. A breach of this law would have been to refuse us service in french. Saying that the requirement for public services to be offered in french is oppression or xenophobic is downright absurd.

    I did not realize that providing services in French is costless to non-Francophone service providers! Do you also think that providing services in English would be costless to non-Anglophone service providers?

    What do you think would happen to the dominance of French in Quebec if everyone in Quebec were bilingual?

    You merrily hop between Quebec's sovereignty as a geographical province - where Anglophone Quebecers have an undeniable right to live and work - and Quebec's sovereignty as a self-determining Francophone nation. When it comes to the rights of minorities within Quebec, you cry that any intrusion by perfidious outsiders must be "colonialism" - that these people are "invaders". But when it comes to legislation enforcing the supremacy of French, suddenly minority cultures of the Canadian federation have an inviolable right to self-determination. Make up your mind.

    i'm not sure i understand your point very well...

    So what you're saying is that it's wrong for a French-speaking province to demand that services be provided in French because there's a cost there? Would it be wrong for, say, Americans to expect to work and receive orders in English at, say, a Toyota factory?

    Anglophone Quebecers have a right to work and live just as Hispanophone Americans do? I'm confused by your point here as well.

    i mean, Quebec is, officially, a french-speaking nation within a nation. Why is it horrible and bigoted to expect newcomers to learn the language if they stay in this province? Is it because Quebecers should learn english and shed away their own culture because our ancestors lost a war?

    i'm really confused by your position and the reasoning that led to it, Ronya. Can you elaborate a bit for me?

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    Edit: And the legal requirements for like, having french in bold and twice as large and with erect cocks hanging off every letter so you know that we're definitely francophone just underline that point in practice.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    Edit: And the legal requirements for like, having french in bold and twice as large and with erect cocks hanging off every letter so you know that we're definitely francophone just underline that point in practice.

    Well, no, it's a utilitarian thing.

    Otherwise, you'd need to be able to offer every federal service in literally every language, no?

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    Edit: And the legal requirements for like, having french in bold and twice as large and with erect cocks hanging off every letter so you know that we're definitely francophone just underline that point in practice.

    Every nation has an official language except the USA. And in the USA English is a de facto official language, just not one on the books. The "useful application" is to have a common baseline for communications. Granted, Québec's laws go well beyond that, but their situation is different from just the need to communicate.

    sig.gif
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    Edit: And the legal requirements for like, having french in bold and twice as large and with erect cocks hanging off every letter so you know that we're definitely francophone just underline that point in practice.

    Every nation has an official language except the USA. And in the USA English is a de facto official language, just not one on the books. The "useful application" is to have a common baseline for communications. Granted, Québec's laws go well beyond that, but their situation is different from just the need to communicate.

    By law, I must be able to read English for my job. It's not a nationalism or racism thing; it's basic road safety.

    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    notdroid wrote: »
    Language assimilation is done through language laws, which can easily involve oppression, but it does not inherently does so.

    Not really. If it was, Quebec wouldn't still be fighting this battle.

    The truth is you got it write the first time. Assimilation is accomplished via demographic weight. You learn the local language and adopt local customs (or some variation of them that meshes with your original ones) because you have to. I mean, you or someone else brought up Montreal as an example earlier and that's exactly the point. Despite the language laws, tons of areas of Montreal are still anglophone and many natives Montrealers don't speak much to any french. Because they don't need to in order to get by.


    Quebec's problem is that the same thing it's trying to do to immigrants is happening to them on a larger scale. And so you get language laws and such in an attempt to fight back. Other areas in similar situations have tried the same thing, with mixed results.

    Because they want to "preserve the culture" or some similar sentiment, the Quebecois are willing to impose on immigrants the same policies they don't want imposed on themselves. It's hotly debated whether that's actually a good thing.

    shryke on
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    If you're organizing a country, determining what language everything should be in seems like the most obvious first step.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Every nation has an official language except the USA.

    Not true. Also the UK and a bunch of others.

    But yeah they usually have a de facto official language. If mostly everyone already speaks the one language you don't really need to make it official.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    Edit: And the legal requirements for like, having french in bold and twice as large and with erect cocks hanging off every letter so you know that we're definitely francophone just underline that point in practice.

    Well, no, it's a utilitarian thing.

    Otherwise, you'd need to be able to offer every federal service in literally every language, no?

    This is pretty common in the UK. For example here is the list of languages in which my local council (Birmingham City Council) officially makes its services available:
    Arabic
    Bengali
    Chinese
    Farsi
    Gujarati
    Punjabi
    Pushto
    Somali
    Urdu
    Vietnamese

    I'm pretty certain that's not exhaustive, either, since they certainly make a lot of material available in Polish as well.

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    shryke wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    Language assimilation is done through language laws, which can easily involve oppression, but it does not inherently does so.

    Not really. If it was, Quebec wouldn't still be fighting this battle.

    The truth is you got it write the first time. Assimilation is accomplished via demographic weight. You learn the local language and adopt local customs (or some variation of them that meshes with your original ones) because you have to. I mean, you or someone else brought up Montreal as an example earlier and that's exactly the point. Despite the language laws, tons of areas of Montreal are still anglophone and many natives Montrealers don't speak much to any french. Because they don't need to in order to get by.

    I wasn't precise enough in that statement. Yes, assimilation is accomplished via demographic weight. In Quebec, this demographic would be the francophone demographic. With the increase of immigration, the francophone demographic weight is decreasing. The purpose behind language laws is ultimately to try and integrate immigrants into this francophone demographic to preserve its size and as a result avoid the assimilation of Quebec itself.

    Montreal's case is often subject to debate. On one end (1*), the number of people whose first language is french is in decline. On the other hand (2*), French-English bilingualism is increasing in Montreal, and the Anglophone demographic is learning french at an increasing rate, which was not always the case. Data is collected every year on this topic, and some people claim it symbolizes the futility of language laws or insufficiency (1) while others claim it shows it's working (2).
    shryke wrote: »
    Quebec's problem is that the same thing it's trying to do to immigrants is happening to them on a larger scale. And so you get language laws and such in an attempt to fight back. Other areas in similar situations have tried the same thing, with mixed results.

    Because they want to "preserve the culture" or some similar sentiment, the Quebecois are willing to impose on immigrants the same policies they don't want imposed on themselves. It's hotly debated whether that's actually a good thing.

    I took this section of your post separately because I wholeheartedly agree with this comment, and the jury is indeed still out on whether or not this works at all.

    This is actually a double edged sword and is in my eyes one of the reasons as to why this is a hotly debated topic.

    On one side, anglophone political figures across Canada and within Quebec will criticize this phenomenon by pointing that fact out. As a response, some francophones will point out that by dropping those same policies, Quebec will end up being assimilated into Canada in the same manner that's being condemned.

    notdroid on
  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Julius wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Every nation has an official language except the USA.

    Not true. Also the UK and a bunch of others.

    But yeah they usually have a de facto official language. If mostly everyone already speaks the one language you don't really need to make it official.

    The United States of America does not have an official language. However, 28 out of 50 states have English as their official language. As this is a topic that mainly deals with a provincial political matter, I felt this was important to highlight.

    EDIT: Edited for clarity.

    notdroid on
  • HamurabiHamurabi MiamiRegistered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    Edit: And the legal requirements for like, having french in bold and twice as large and with erect cocks hanging off every letter so you know that we're definitely francophone just underline that point in practice.

    Well, no, it's a utilitarian thing.

    Otherwise, you'd need to be able to offer every federal service in literally every language, no?

    This is pretty common in the UK. For example here is the list of languages in which my local council (Birmingham City Council) officially makes its services available:
    Arabic
    Bengali
    Chinese
    Farsi
    Gujarati
    Punjabi
    Pushto
    Somali
    Urdu
    Vietnamese

    I'm pretty certain that's not exhaustive, either, since they certainly make a lot of material available in Polish as well.

    Oh hell yeah. I can understand -- or at least get by -- in four of those languages. Eff the haters.

    Also: I heard @ronya arguing for cultural imperialism and came running as fast as I could! :P

  • HamurabiHamurabi MiamiRegistered User regular
    As someone who came from a majority-Hispanic city, I think efforts to coerce groups through alienation from public goods (government offices, essential services, etc.) through linguistic discrimination is ultimately a doomed project. While I certainly appreciate that standardization has its own merits... assimilation now occurs within the span of one generation, linguistic discrimination or no. All you do by discriminating based on language now is make the lives of vulnerable populations even more difficult because they're basically the least able to learn a completely new language.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Every nation has an official language except the USA.

    Not true. Also the UK and a bunch of others.

    But yeah they usually have a de facto official language. If mostly everyone already speaks the one language you don't really need to make it official.

    The United States of America does not have an official language. However, 28 out of 50 states have English as their official language. As this is a topic that mainly deals with a provincial political matter, I felt this was important to highlight.

    EDIT: Edited for clarity.

    Yep, and just like so many policies in the US( like drug testing for welfare as an example), it's billed as something that saves money, but it's actually just a way to disenfranchise minorities and blow your dog whistle to let Real Americans know they should vote for you. Since saying yeah I get pissed when I can't understand all the people speaking Mexican in public places, doesn't go over as well.

    Then again this kind of stupid shit from Quebec isn't surprising, when their linguistic home has government employees who are tasked with making up words in French for everything invented in English...like #Hashtag. Being now legally required to be referred to as #mot-dièse which ironically enough doesn't work as a hash tag. IIRC they tried to rename blog and wifi too. They just renamed binge drinking in July. beuverie express(fast drinking) if you care , which seems to lack the nuance specificity of the English term.

    It also seems extra futile for Quebec given the 800 lb gorilla of Anglophone culture right next door.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    notdroid wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Every nation has an official language except the USA.

    Not true. Also the UK and a bunch of others.

    But yeah they usually have a de facto official language. If mostly everyone already speaks the one language you don't really need to make it official.

    The United States of America does not have an official language. However, 28 out of 50 states have English as their official language. As this is a topic that mainly deals with a provincial political matter, I felt this was important to highlight.

    EDIT: Edited for clarity.

    Yep, and just like so many policies in the US( like drug testing for welfare as an example), it's billed as something that saves money, but it's actually just a way to disenfranchise minorities and blow your dog whistle to let Real Americans know they should vote for you. Since saying yeah I get pissed when I can't understand all the people speaking Mexican in public places, doesn't go over as well.

    Then again this kind of stupid shit from Quebec isn't surprising, when their linguistic home has government employees who are tasked with making up words in French for everything invented in English...like #Hashtag. Being now legally required to be referred to as #mot-dièse which ironically enough doesn't work as a hash tag. IIRC they tried to rename blog and wifi too. They just renamed binge drinking in July. beuverie express(fast drinking) if you care , which seems to lack the nuance specificity of the English term.

    It also seems extra futile for Quebec given the 800 lb gorilla of Anglophone culture right next door.

    A) It's MotClic, i believe and B) Looking at the francophone communities in Manitoba and Ontario... Yeah, without language Laws, Quebec would probably still have its language in two generations... Same in four or 5...

    The laws weren't put there because French was in danger so much as because the francophones were kind of oppressed by the anglophone minority. Like Notdroid said, these laws were so people could not be refused service for speaking french.

    21stCentury on
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    Certainly these things can be complicated. In NZ Maori is an official language by law, as is sign language, but English not so much, yet only the latter gets treated like an official language in every practical sense. Mass non white British immigration from the 1960s onwards has complicated things, while on one hand leading to a similar scenario to Birmingham in terms of making access to government practical for non English speakers, while also bringing to a head confrontation between the ideals and practicalities of bicultural ism vs multicultural ism.

    The former being shorthand for hard fought recognition of the primacy of Maori culture and language over other contenders and equality with English. But in a practical situation where Maori is more like Welsh than the Québécois

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    Assigning an official language to your country runs counter to good sense. There's no useful application of it beyond defining a nationalist tribe.

    Ensuring the citizenry of your prospective country can communicate with each other is not merely a good idea, it is a necessary prerequisite before anything else meaningful can happen.

    And it wouldn't have to be a single official language. Several European countries have multiple official national languages.

    Switzerland has German, French, and Italian
    Belgium has German, French, and Dutch

    And so on.

    I think a country saying "You need to learn to speak one of the four languages we use here before you permanently move here" is an entirely reasonable position. In Quebec's case, they don't tell immigrants 'Learn English or French' because they feel they are under constant pressure themselves to abandon their French culture, of which they are fond, and instead adopt an English culture.

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    The Charter of Quebec Values' contents have dropped.
    The minister in charge of the charter, Bernard Drainville, announced at the national assembly that, if adopted by the legislation, the wearing of kippas, turbans, burkas, hijabs and "large" crosses would be banned for civil servants while they are on the job.

    [...]

    The plan would apply to judges, police, prosecutors, public daycare workers, teachers, school employees, hospital workers, and municipal personnel. Drainville said some institutions and public organizations might be able to opt out of the ban for a five-year period. However, he said, daycare workers, elementary school teachers and early care providers would not be eligible for the opt-out.

    [...]

    Drainville said that the charter would include five proposals:
    Amend the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
    Establish a duty of neutrality and reserve for all state personnel.
    Limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols.
    Make it mandatory to have one’s face uncovered when providing or receiving a state service.
    Establish an implementation policy for state organizations.

    Drainville said elected members of the national assembly will not be subject to the regulations. Though no timeline has been announced, the bill is expected to be tabled sometime in the coming months.

    [...]

    The article has two diagrams, one of what's not allowed, one of what's allowed. (Spoilers: Crosses are allowed, as are small islamic star-and-moon earings and small star-of-david rings...)

    It sends a pretty strong message, really... "This Province is secular (read: Catholic) and you better look the part or get out."

    Of course, the crucifix at the National Assembly is not against that charter, as are prayers before assemblies. Because those are "cultural" and not religious.

    this is very disheartening... Worse, people are warming up to the charter. Support for it has gone up from 58% to 66% in two weeks according to polls.

    All iI can hope now is that the charter will not pass. Luckily, we have a minority government and the other parties are very much against it.

    if it does pass, however, well... wow, it's gonna do a lot of harm, won't it? Prevent a whole lot of people from getting the jobs they want and are qualified for unless they shed away an important part of themselves.

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    Well you see, people who want to wear the religious symbols of minority religions in a standard way can get bent. But if you are the right kind of Québécois Catholic, you get a pass. And any non-retarded rationale goes out the window when you ban the kippah from daycare workers.

    C'est la justice

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    Wow, face must be uncovered when receiving services... not just when establishing identity.

    It is telling they need to amend their charter on human rights before they can limit these things.

    Are people really that concerned that a daycare worker wearing a turban will convert their children?

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    Wow, face must be uncovered when receiving services... not just when establishing identity.

    It is telling they need to amend their charter on human rights before they can limit these things.

    Are people really that concerned that a daycare worker wearing a turban will convert their children?

    Yes.

    Yes they are.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Then those people are big old fucking racists

    like the Bloc Quebecois

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.